Author: Joseph Dewey

Synthesizing Tolle

A reader thought I has misrepresented Tolle’s teachings so I thought I would make some additional comments.

Every teacher in the universe will advocate action on some level. It is impossible to teach without directing students to some type of action and I never said Tolle did not advocate taking action. I said that he emphasized that the present is all there is and this was a correct statement. Without going into the value of seeing the past and the future and taking them into consideration in making judgements then the student is likely to ignore the wisdom to be gleaned from the past or the promise of the future.

His teachings on action are somewhat paradoxical like those in many Buddhist and Hindu writings. One of the effects of these teachings is the lack of action and development taken by the nations dominated by these teachings.

Don’t get me wrong, there is truth in these teachings, but their teachers place an incorrect emphasis on inaction and just going with the flow and this is one of the reasons why India has remained as a third world nation for so long.

As a prime example Tolle gives the story of a guru who was wrongly accused of impregnating a lady and he did nothing but yield to the accusations. Then he was told to raise the kid and he just accepted what others told him to do and raised him. Then he was told he had to give the kid up and he did so without consideration of the feelings of the kid. He just did what he was told to do. This story Tolle gave as example of what he sees as right action and right surrender. It also shows no judgement. The guy just did what he was told without using any of his god given power of discernment.

I thought this was a terrible example of how we are supposed to surrender judgement and acquiesce to what is going on around us.

Would this guru also have done what Hitler told him to do and gassed the Jews? You get the impression he may have.

Even though I see Tolle here as giving a misleading emphasis he was talking around a true principle of acceptance so if one reads this in the light of the soul while retaining his power of positive judgement and common sense, he can still get some truth from it.

Tolle does speak of right action, as all teachers do, but this prime example gives us an idea of what he really admires as being right action which is not much different from the yielding of the Hale Bop followers to the instructions of their guru to kill themselves. How far would this guy in the story have to be pushed before he would use judgement and say “enough!?”

He teaches non judgement but then cannot say much without indicating that judgments must be made. This is true of all teachers who teach acquiescence. They cannot say much without contradicting themselves and then advocating judgement.

For instance, we’ve had people come on this group condemning us for making judgements and then judging us as being unloving. No one can say much without judgement entering in.

The story he gives shows actual action he admires and that action is void of judgement or recognition of response to good or evil.

A truth to be gleaned from the story is that we can turn lemons into lemonade. The problem is that we shouldn’t allow every person and his dog to give us lemons as the self has his own right to accept and reject what others want him to do.

Tolle did not accept his given name that his parents wanted for him. If he followed the example of the guru in his story then he would have kept it.

True he says a lot of good things, but then I see other things where he contradicts himself. Sometimes he explains the contradictions as related to the self and not self but other times he does not because they appear to be true contradictions.

The bottom line is this. Even though some of the ways that Tolle words his presentation rubs me the wrong way I would in no way discourage anyone here from reading him and incorporating into their lives that which seems right to their souls.

You seem to think my problem with him is that I just glossed over his teachings, but I think I absorbed them pretty well.

That said I want you to resist a black and white interpretation of my comments on him. I am not saying “me right and Tolle wrong.”

Overall, he is a good writer and has some productive things to say. Even the things I see as wrong emphasis have truth behind them if seen in the light of the soul. I think his writings are better than “The Celestine Prophecy” and “Conversations with God.”

It would be boring for me to just list all his teachings with which I agree, but it is more thought provoking to point out where wrong directions may lie. This gives us food for thought and stimulates our own power of judgement.

Again, I would bet if you specifically tell me of truths you gleaned from his writings that I would agree with you.

More On Oneness

I was asked to make additional comments on the Oneness Principle as it applies to the seeker. It is true that the main purpose of the soul in relation to truth and the seeker is to verify truth and principles.

BUT the soul and the Oneness principle are two different things. The power of the soul opens the door to the Oneness Principle which is essentially like a grand spiritual internet. Now what creates misunderstandings about it is that there are many degrees of access. Some just have e-mail, some have an old and limited browser and others have a good updated one.

The beginning of accessing the Oneness Principles is through the understanding of principles themselves and though such mutual understanding two seekers can see eye to eye beyond that of two people educated in the standard manner. All true principles are available through the Oneness Principle but accessing data accurately can be accomplished by few in mortality. The Masters are able to do this to a much higher degree than ourselves and can peer into the past that is hidden from the standard disciple.

To complain that life has no joys while there is a single creature whom we can relieve by our bounty, assist by our counsels or enliven by our presence, is … just as rational as to die of thirst with the cup in our hands. —Thomas Fitzosborne

March 13, 2008

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.

“Search” site:freeread.com

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Comments on Tolle

Several readers have responded to Tolle’s teachings with different views. To these I added:

I finally figured out in the “New Heaven” book that he does mention the emotional body, but just calls it the “pain body.” While it is true the emotional body is a source of pain, that is not its destiny. As the disciple assumes control of his lower bodies pain will be the furthermost thing from its description. Instead of pain, it will be a source of happiness and tranquility.

I certainly would not describe my present emotional body as a “pain body” for it gives me much pleasure and support.

Eckhart Tolle considered suicide when he was younger and this was undoubtedly because of a painful emotional experience that he has not yet transcended. In fact the audio I am listening to is read by him and he sounds somewhat like he is still in emotional pain.

I think this is part of the reason his books are selling so well. Emotional pain is so common that one who identifies with it and can take the masses a step forward is widely accepted.

In a follow-up post, Dan quotes JJ from the text above:

A reader responded thinking that Tolle’s pain body may be the Dweller on the Threshold.

Yes, sometimes when he talks about the “pain body” it sounds like The Dweller, and other times like the “reactive body” from Scientology.

I don’t see many signs that he has read DK so he probably has a sense of The Dweller but describes it differently and throws in the “reactive body” in the mix.

The “pain body” would be an appropriate name for the “reactive body” of Scientology.

Tolle’s material is very timely and a good subject for discussion. I’m about two thirds through with the New Heaven book and can see that his writings will be of value to many. I can see why Oprah was impressed by him. There are several illusions though for he seems to support the Nothingness Philosophy. Fortunately, this is not the main theme he pushes. A seeker can read this or any other book and take what registers with his soul and leave the rest.

“If you can clearly articulate these potential ‘pockets of illusion,’ I would appreciate it. I am attending Oprah and Tolle’s Monday night Live Web Class and I can submit the questions and try to get answers direct from the horse’s mouth instead of speculating.”

As far as the illusion goes, I don’t have the text in front of me to quote since I am listening to the audio, but he says quite clearly in the book I am reading that the true reality is beyond duality. He uses formless, but in a different context than DK [Djwahl Khul]. He uses it to imply nothingness whereas DK uses it to describe a world where form does not exist, but is far from nothing.

Like most “nothingness people” Tolle says there is no difference between good and evil and the best thing to do is to ignore anything going on as nothing means anything for in the end everything will be as if it never was and we will just merge with the whole and lose our identity. He gives examples of a teacher who has terrible things happen to him and he just shrugs it off. This is supposed to be good (there’s that word again) because nothing means anything in the end.

Then he backtracks and asks if we should not care about certain things and indicates that we should, but does not say why because caring contradicts his previous statements about good and evil.

This type of teaching is prevalent in eastern teachings. Just as Christianity has some common illusions so do the religions in the East.

For instance, here is an example of what is seen as great enlightenment.

A teacher fetched much needed water in his only jug and was heading home with it on his head when a stranger bumped him and it fell to the ground and broke. The man continued on as if nothing had happened. Another guy noticed this and was curious and approached the guy and asked: “Sir. Don’t you realize you dropped your valuable jug and have suffered a great loss?”

He said he did but because the accident was now in the past it means nothing and so he is moving forward a if nothing has happened.

There are two types of people who take this approach to life.

1. Those who are high on drugs — very high.
2. Those who embrace the Nothingness Philosophy.

Those who embrace this philosophy miss the whole purpose of existence which they tend to see as an accident that is not even supposed to have happened.

Existence was supposed to have happened and we are supposed to engage in it and find joy therein.

When you go to sleep at night and enter the dream state you could say that what happened during the day means nothing because you are now in a different world. BUT in reality is everything that happens during the day negated just because you enter a different reality at night? The present is all there is as Tolle and many others say so while we are here, this is all there is, and thus we should make the most of it for there are many billions of years before The Great Pralaya occurs.

The true teaching centers around detachment rather than withdrawal from this reality. When the seeker is detached he can then use his judgement and view negative things from the viewpoint of the observer. A withdrawal is a form of denial as was the case of the man who dropped the jug or the case cited by Tolle of the man who raised and gave up a child with no feeing of joy or sorrow.

A reader who disagrees with me on Tolle sees himself as putting his soul contact against my own.

I do not see the situation in this light at all. You have just as much right to soul contact as I do. I am confident that Tolle’s writings that speak to your soul are giving you a direction that will be beneficial to you. I am also confident that if you give me a quote that feels right to you that my soul would see that rightness also. For instance, the last batch of quotes you gave on consciousness all have truth in them to be realized. It is important to realize that when I find some of the words of another teacher that projects some illusion that does not mean that I do not think there can be much truth to be discovered. In fact, a teacher can take a true principle and put it into technically incorrect words yet through the soul the student can see the correct essence and benefit therefrom.

I’m sure that whenever you give me an actual quote that spoke to you that I could see why your soul responded. I have enough faith in our mutual soul contact to believe this.

Eckhart Tolle is popular because he obviously has a message that speaks to people. In my opinion many of the things he says are quite accurate. Some of what he says is true but he presents it differently and with different words than myself.

Then there are several things where he is actually speaking around true principles, but comes to an erroneous conclusion or perhaps one could say they could lead a student in an illusionary direction.

He seems to do this around the principle of detachment and duality. Both of these are true principles, but if incorrectly presented or understood can lead to illusion.

For instance, if rightly taught and understood detachment can lead to great liberation and this is the goal that Tolle presents to us. On the other hand, if wrongly presented and understood the student will go away thinking that he needs to be so disconnected from reality that he will never step forward to correct any wrongs. DK  points out that some who misunderstood these principles were erroneously neutral during World War II, and if all had this attitude Hitler would have won the war.

In many situations the enlightened student cannot just sit back and say “this too shall pass” or “nothing in this reality is of importance.”

Tolle reinforces this paralysis that many new age people have in their actions by emphasizing that “the present is all there is.”

Now this seems to be an obvious undeniable truth and can be taken to illusionary conclusions. Many students conclude that since the present is all there is, the future and the past be damned. I will be happy now no matter what. Thus would the student in the days of Hitler live in bliss while his fellow Jews are being hauled to extermination camps and Hitler takes over the world.

It is true that the world can be falling apart around the disciple and he can still access peace at his core but his personality self may be in great turbulence, and rightfully so. The allows him to correctly handle situations in our present reality so we can successfully function here.

The present is all there is in the formless worlds, but here we cannot function without the past. If Tolle did not access his past memories of the English language he could not have written his books or made any sense on Oprah

What seems to be missing from Tolle’s teachings on the present, good and evil, duality, etc., is The Second Key of Judgement.

It is true that many get struck in the past and cannot let go. Others dream of the future and never materialize their dreams. But others get stuck in the present and only want to satisfy their own selfish current needs. Using judgement one can balance all three so they work and then harmlessly use the power of the present to achieve fulfillment.

Tolle says we should not fight evil. If we take him at his word then we should have no law enforcement for their job is to fight evil. On the other hand, judgement tells us that yes, obviously society needs law enforcement to contain the evils of society. Without them we would see the much greater evil of mob rule.

The bottom line is this. Even though some of the ways that Tolle words his presentation rubs me the wrong way I would in no way discourage anyone here from reading him and incorporating into their lives that which seems right to their souls. After all, I am reading him myself. I do not see myself as being in competition with him or any other teacher and if someone else speaks to you then always pay attention to what the inner self directs.

One of my favorite quotes on soul contact is one of my own from The Archives:

“One with soul contact can find more truth in the National Enquirer than one who is in illusion can find in the Bible.”

March 11, 2008

Quotes taken from The Immortal; Book I Download it free at my website.

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.

“Search” site:freeread.com

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Eckhart Tolle

Interesting conversation on Eckhart Tolle. When a spiritual teacher breaks into public consciousness I usually read his material to examine why this person seems to be making an impact. Usually, I find nothing new in the teachings. So I ask myself why this person’s writings are making an impact. Here is what I find to usually be the case.

Usually, the book is well written. Celestine Prophecy though was an exception. All orthodox reviewers thought this book sucked as a novel but it did present some ideas that were not well known and stimulated thinking.

The second thing they do is present a teaching that can be at least partially grasped by general humanity as a next step for them to take. The writing will avoid going too deep to keep interest.

Thirdly, it is often a synthesis of current new age teachings that have not made it to the general public.

Fourth, it has a hook such as talking with God (Conversations with God) or in this case a mystical name (The Power of Now and A New Earth) and a strange accent.

I’m always a little suspicious about the glamor glamour behind someone who changes his name to sound more mysterious. Eckhart’s real name was Ulrich, but changed it to Eckhart after the medieval mystic. This move seems to contradict his teaching about being ourselves and not attempting to be anything else to impress anyone.

I’m about half way through his audio book on A New Earth. It does have some interesting things, but nothing new that brings that “ah-ha moment” that true seekers are always looking to find.

A lot of his teachings reflect the Course in Miracles but uses a little different language. He also deals with the question Who are we? Ironically this was the main theme of my first book.

He rightfully concludes we are not our bodies, things, or our minds, but I do not recall him mentioning emotions.

He concludes that we are merely consciousness. This was the guess reached in the Immortal when we were about half way to the answer.

I thought I’d give you some of the dialog from the book to refresh your minds.

“It is true that you are a human being. You are also a son of God as the scriptures teach. But just saying you are human or a son of God, Godlike or angelic means little. It is just an expression of words with little meaning to most. Let me ask you again… WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU, really?”

This sounded easy at first, but I was beginning to get the idea that it might be harder than I thought. I thought a moment of every teaching I could think of about who I was and then responded. “Some say I am Spirit or Soul. Is that who I am?”

“And what is Spirit or Soul?” said John.

“Well, I guess it is me without my body. Perhaps that which continues after death.”

“If I were to tell you that you are Spirit, does that tell you anything about who or what you are?”

“Well, yes. I guess so.”

“What does it tell you?”

“It tells me that I… that I’m…. that I’m, well, some type of spirit essence.”

“Didn’t you learn in basic English that you are not supposed to define a word with the word you are defining? You do not define red by saying it is red. You do not define spirit by saying it is spirit. Now let me repeat. If I say you are Spirit, what does it tell you?”

I was about to define Spirit by using the word Spirit again, but caught myself and thought a moment. “I guess if I am Spirit then I am not physical.”

John then reached toward me and grabbed my wrist. “But I can feel your physical self. So are you really Spirit?”

“Well, I guess am a physical being with a spirit.”

“Let me explain something that you must remember throughout this course. I will always speak to you precisely. I did not say that you have a spirit, but I asked you what it would mean if you were Spirit?”

“I guess it would mean that I am not physical.”

“Progress at last!” said John. “But if you are not physical, then what is left?”

I thought a moment. “Spirit, I suppose.”

John sighed. “Again I ask, what is Spirit?”

“I’m not exactly sure… Perhaps life, essence, vibration. It is what we are when we are not physical.”

“But if you are Spirit it is also what you are when you are physical. If you are Spirit then you are always Spirit. Do you think you alter between being Spirit and not being Spirit?”

“I guess not.”

“You now have food for thought. Think about this question for the next week. We will then meet in seven days and review your thoughts and give you more direction. Please repeat the question for me again.”

“What is Spirit?”

“No, my friend. That followed the question. If you are to get the correct answer, you must contemplate the correct question. What is the question?”

“Who am I?”

“Not quite. Think again. What is the question? Remember what I said about exact wording.”

“Was it What am I?”

“Think again.”

I thought back to the beginning. “Was it WHO OR WHAT AM I?”

[…]

Now, getting back to the subject, do you have any other ideas about ‘WHO OR WHAT YOU ARE’ before I give you your next hint?”

I thought for a moment. “So, basically all my answers are correct, but they just don’t mean anything. I am a human, I am spirit, I am soul, I am a son of God and I am even a god or maybe even God in some esoteric way, but none of these statements communicate more than a vague idea. Is this correct?”

“That is exactly correct. Can you think of an answer to the question that does mean something to you?”

[…]

In your own words, tell me: WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU?”

I took a deep breath. “OK, here are my thoughts. If I am not my body, mind or emotions, and if all the other terms I’ve passed by you do not have enough meaning, I guess all that is left is consciousness itself. I am consciousness.”

“Do you know what consciousness is?”

“Consciousness is livingness. Life.”

“And what is life?”

“An awareness.”

“An awareness of what?”

“An awareness of whatever is out there?”

“How about things that are inside yourself? Is consciousness awareness of that too?”

I thought a moment. “I suppose,” I said.

“So consciousness is awareness of things outside and inside self?”

“I think so,” I said, unsure of myself.

“So the real you is like a camera that takes snapshots of what is outside and inside of itself?”

“I’m not sure,” I replied weakly.

“That just doesn’t feel right, does it?”

“No, it seems silly when you think about it. We’ve got to be something more profound than a camera,” I said.

“Again, you found something that you are not. A camera is something a living thing uses, but it is another type of vehicle that is in use by the real Self.”

I thought silently for a few seconds. “I think I’m at a dead end here. I have passed by you everything that a human being has ever considered that he was, and not one of them is the right answer.”

John smiled. “If the answer were obvious, you would not need a teacher. A true spiritual teacher does not show up to teach maxims that are readily available in the books of the world. There are hundreds of books in print dealing with the divinity in man or the idea that humans are gods. Then there are many others dealing with the standard spiritual ideas.

[…]

Have you discovered who or what you are yet?”

“I think I have either found the truth or am close to it,” I said, leaning toward John. “When scientists examine matter they say that they cannot find proof that solid particles exist. All they can seem to find on the smallest level is wavelengths in motion. If all these wavelengths were to be stilled, the universe would virtually disappear. If the motion of the wavelengths that make me would be stilled, then I would probably cease to exist. Therefore, the real me has to be motion or action of some kind.”

“That’s very good,” said John. “Coming to this point is a milestone, but you are not there yet. Answer me this: What is it that is in motion and what is the force creating the motion?”

I thought a moment. “If there is no such thing as solid matter then nothing is in motion, if that is possible. I guess the force propelling the wavelengths is pure energy.”

“But,” said John, “if there is no solid matter, then nothing is in motion, as you say. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that energy is not required for motion since nothing is really in motion?”

“Maybe I was right after all,” Elizabeth chuckled. “I said half joking that we were nothing and perhaps I was right.”

“As far as the material plane goes, you are correct,” said John. “But from the greater reality you are a great something. That something which creates all motion in the universe is the great mystery. Energy is not the answer because in reality there is really nothing solid in motion.

“Now I will give you two major hints. First, in my hand I have a pen. Now I will take this pen and throw it on that sofa over there.”

John threw the pen on the sofa.

“Now, what made that pen fly over to the sofa?”

“Obviously you did,” I said.

“And who or what am I? And don’t say John.”

“So the real you threw that pen?”

“Yes. That which is the real me made the pen move. This is the first major hint. The second one is a parable. Do you both have a few minutes while I relate it to you?”

“We’re not going anywhere on a bet,” I said.

March 11, 2008

Quotes taken from The Immortal; Book I Download it free at my website.

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.

“Search” site:freeread.com

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Believable Correspondences

A reader who is a big believer in the gold standard thought my parable on money and gold was unrealistic.

As far as realistic goes oftentimes a teacher will create a situation to teach students about real life. Part of the parable is realistically similar to a learning situation I was in when I was a teenager. When I was in the Boy Scouts our scoutmaster came up with a grand scheme to teach us how to be self-sufficient. He took us to the river in Emmett, Idaho one morning with nothing but what was in our pockets and divided us into three groups of about four to five persons each. He then gave us our assignment. Starting from nothing but what we could find near the shore of the river each group was to build a raft and float it to Letha which was ten miles away. The first group to arrive would be the winner. The prize was dinner at his house. Believe me the reward was much more in the experience than the prize.

Just like in the parable we spent a short time trying to figure out what to do first, but it did not involve sitting around waiting for something to happen. First, we selected a leader and secondly, we put our heads together for a short time to figure out a strategy. We noticed some in the other two groups greedily gathering logs and wood so we decided the first order was to secure materials as soon as possible before the good stuff was all taken.

As we moved along it seemed that one of the other groups was ahead of us and some in our group voiced concern. I told our group that their hastily put together raft looked like it would fall apart. We were going to float ten miles in a pretty rough river and there is good chance that the winner will be the raft that does nothing more than hold together. We should make a secure raft even if it causes us to be the last to take off.

I said this partially in concern for my own safety for I wasn’t a good swimmer and my life would have been at considerable risk if the raft fell apart in the middle of the raging river.

The group thought that this was sound advice and we concentrated on creating a stable raft more than being the first to begin the journey.

Using our ingenuity, we put together an amazingly secure raft from raw materials and, as anticipated, we were the last to take off.

About a mile into the journey we came across the first group holding on to logs left over from their raft which had broken apart. They were either on shore or near to the shore and were definitely out of the race. We were glad they all seemed OK and waved to them as we happily passed by.

Then another mile into the race we came across the second raft which was constructed better, but not as sound as ours. The raft was stalled in some muddy marshland and the group were all out of the raft in the water trying to push it back into the main stream and patch it up.

We laughed at them and waved as we passed by. But then we had a similar problem up river and they passed us by. For the next five miles or so we were neck and neck. One was ahead and then the other.

The finish line was a large bridge that spanned the river and as we neared it we pulled ahead, but then we realized we faced a new danger. We were going a good clip as we were headed for the large concrete pillars. It took all our effort to miss them and steer ourselves safely to shore. Our scoutmaster greeted us with congratulations.

Then the second raft showed up, but they had difficulty in steering it and they realized they couldn’t navigate it away from one of the large pillars. Everyone jumped ship and swam to shore as their raft hit the pillar and broke into a hundred pieces.

We were glad they were all good swimmers and made it to shore safely. I was especially glad that I was not on that raft for I don’t think I could have made it.

It is true that this story does not exactly correspond to the parable but it does make several points.

If I wrote this as a parable some may say that this story is unrealistic as teenage kids could not just find raw materials by a river and build two rafts that could make it ten miles before sundown. Furthermore, it is unrealistic that a scoutmaster would allow the kids to be in such a perilous situation and with no life preservers.

Both the parable and my real-life experience has the students starting with nothing but the materials provided by nature. In that situation we realized that the only thing we had of real value was our wits and our labor. Gold, silver or regular money was meaningless as we realized where the real value was in accomplishing our goal.

Just as our scoutmaster set up a situation to teach us self-sufficiency another teacher could come up a situation to teach the principles of money. True, the 144,000 in the parable was an unrealistic number for a class but 144 would be possible.

Another point is that the situation in a parable does not have to be something that is likely to happen in real life to use it as a correspondence for teaching a principle. Some of the parables of Jesus were situations that were unlikely to happen, yet the correspondence was true and the point was made.

Now for a short term project like building a raft for a race we did not need a long term motivator. We had the prize offered and the glory of the win. In building a city (as in the parable) with a large group money would be required as a long-term motivator and it is realistic that the two groups would come up with two different methods of creating it.

If in real life we are talking about building a city and have come up with two different methods of creating money. Perhaps the parable is not so unrealistic after all.

The reader says she is open to an asset-based money system but cannot see how it could work.

I have some interesting ideas that when put to paper I think will meet your criteria with much greater potential for stability than anything done before.

Just like the Molecular Relationship is easier to visualize when you have a whole book to explain it instead of getting pieces here and there even so will my economic ideas make much more sense when fully presented.

I see nothing wrong with your comments on centralization and problems therefrom. As I see it the main problem with any organization is the flow of beastly authority from the top down with little or nothing from the bottom up. When the flow is two ways then the organization can get as large as it wants and still work. The case in point is the Spiritual Hierarchy which has centralized authority, but gets feedback from the bottom up as in the Molecular Relationship.

She then asks if it is truly realistic to base a money system as on one average hour of labor being equal to twenty dollars.

Actually you could start with any amount as a basis for a new dollar. The group could say a new dollar equals 1, 10 or 100 of the old ones. The problem is that it needs tied to something to create a stable currency.

In the past it has been tied to gold but even this most stable of metals has fluctuated in purchasing power as much as 100 percent within a year or two. An hour’s labor fluctuates less rapidly than any other thing. As technology increases it will gradually go up in value and rarely down.

The set value of a dollar equaling the average worth of an hour’s labor would be seen as a goal to constantly work toward by stimulating the money supply plus the creation and consumption of products.

I was presenting a story (The Mystery of Inflation) illustrating how things work today rather than how they will work tomorrow. It’s important that people understand our current problems so they can support a future solution. I have never intended to give the impression that the way money is managed today is the solution to our money problems. On the contrary, it has created a problem that needs fixing.

Nature Shows That It’s Better to Bend Than to Break An oak and a reed were arguing about their strength. When a strong wind came up, the reed avoided being uprooted by bending and leaning with the gusts of wind. But the oak stood firm and was torn up by the roots. —Aesop

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.

“Search” site:freeread.com

March 8, 2008

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Economic Principles Examined

I received some feedback disagreeing with me on whether there could be a feasible fiat money system.

I know there are two groups that are very attached to the gold standard, The first are what we might call fundamental constitutionalists who feel it was inspired of God. The second are fundamentalist Mormons, who also believe this about the Constitution.

I personally have found that to see to greater heights the first thing a seeker needs to do is to drop the infallibility mindset that is so prevalent toward religion, prophets, the founding fathers etc. Then one must look at each issue from the viewpoint of the soul and the application of principles which is the language of the soul.

I have moved through both of these camps and understand their thinking. Because gold and silver is mentioned in the Constitution as a basis for money these groups feel that fiat money is blasphemy and cannot work anymore than Satan’s plan can prevail against God. I find that it is difficult to have a discussion with such people where the possibility of anything but a gold standard is even analyzed with any independence of thinking. I keep getting cliches for arguments that I have heard for many years, but the cliches are not analyzed.

One thing that strict constitutionalists do not mention is that the Constitution forbids any state from using anything but “gold and silver coin” as payment of debt. Technically this would even make paper money illegal and certainly would prohibit fractional banking.

Instead of making money contrary to the Constitution we should have amended it to give the country the flexibility it has illegally taken.

A reader who disagrees with my views on democracy says this: “Democracy leads to the ‘have-nots’ stealing through votes what they want from the haves until the ‘haves’ quit producing.”

JJ: We’ve never had a true democracy in the history of the world so one cannot say this is true from any observation. The most democratic process we have had in recent years are various initiatives that all are allowed the vote on and overall the results of these have been much more enlightened than what comes from our elected officials. Our representative republic has done an exceptional job of taking from the haves and giving to the ‘have-nots’ – and this is not close to a true democracy.

The reader thinks that my ideas on money would create too much centralization of monetary power.

In many ways there were more problems with decentralized banking on the gold standard than centralized banking today on the fiat system.

The most decentralized banking in our history was the Free Banking Era from 1837-1862. During this time there were hundreds of banks issuing their own money. Yes, they competed against each other, but every dollar was not worth a dollar. A dollar from one bank may be worth 80 cents and another 90 cents and still another $1.10. It was a nightmare keeping track of exchange rates then and would be even worse today. Could you imagine living in a country were no dollar was a dollar? One man who is with Bank of America goes to Macdonald’s and has to pay $5 for his meal and another with DL Evans Bank has to pay $6.00. The clerks there have a tough enough time making change for a dollar let alone working with a confusing system from the past.

Even if you paid in gold during the free banking system a twenty-dollar gold piece would buy different amounts of product in different times and situations. Between 1837-1843 prices dropped 37% and between 1849-1854 prices rose 32%. Yet during al this time the price of gold was artificially set at around $20 an ounce. Some fundamentalists think that because the price of gold stayed at $20 then it always bought $20 worth of product, but the truth is the amount of purchasing power gold had varied considerably.

Even von Mises admitted that adding gold to the system had the same effect as adding fiat money.

During the free Banking Era “the average lifespan of a bank was five years; about half of the banks failed, a third of which because they couldn’t redeem their notes.” Reference Link

This chaos with such diverse banking methods, the confusion, the instability, the short lives of banks were just some of the reasons that we were almost forced into a more centralized banking system.

The system we have now is far from perfect, but it is much better than we had in the 19th century.

All things centralized are not bad and all things diverse and unregulated are not good. A judgement call always has to be made.

The free banking system didn’t work either. As I said the banks were so unstable the average lifespan was only five years. The Mormon bank in that era only lasted a few months and Joseph Smith had to flee for his life when it crashed.

Decentralizing the money supply has not worked in the past. I think a much better plan can be put together than has existed in the past, for everything we have tried has had its flaws. We must examine them and learn from them and not repeat the mistakes of the past by doing the same thing over and over.

The reader was adamant that we have hard asset based money but again, we have the problem pointed out in the parable. You have to expend tremendous time and labor to secure the assets which wind up doing nothing but sitting in a vault. The time could be much better spent growing tomatoes, if nothing else.

Because of the Law of Economy this gold backed system is doomed to pass away as it is not the most efficient of all possible methods.

Because, however, physical assets in storage are recognized tender in this present world we may of necessity use them for a period of time in certain situations.

I have received criticism of my economic plan when I have not even presented one, but have so far just broadly presented principles. One day I intend to create a plan then it can be justly criticized. I think most here will find it interesting and unlike anything done before.

In the meantime, I will soon present a plan in my book on fixing the economic problems in this country.

Note the book is now written and is available HERE

The bird of paradise alights only on the hand that does not grasp. —John Berry

March 8, 2008

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

 

Gays and Energy

A gay member had some problems with my teaching, but there were largely because of misunderstanding. Let us cover them briefly.

First of all he asks how we can disagree on some items if we both have soul contact, which he assumes is the case.

There are a number of possibilities here which are:

[1] We really agree but there is a miscommunication, which makes it look otherwise. (This is very common among seekers).

[2] Neither of us received accurate soul contact on this issue.

[3] Only one of us has accurate contact.

[4] Both of us has but one or both are interpreting what we received incorrectly or with prejudice.

He says that he and his partner have an incredible connection.

I accept this. It is quite possible you two have had many relationships in the past, which could include husband/wife, parent/child, teacher/disciple, etc. Positive relationships of the past can result in very close relationships in the present regardless of sex. I felt close to my good friend, Wayne, who has passed, and look forward to meeting him again. I also look forward to meeting my wife again whether it be as the same or different sex.

Concerning relationships, he says: “I have learned that energy follows thought, but thought cannot continually chase after energy.”

JJ: Yes, thought does not chase after energy, but is influenced by it. Gravity is an energy which influences us, and even though energy follows thought, thought does not reverse gravity — at least not thought in our state of evolution. On the other hand, gravity influences our thoughts and habits every minute. For instance, I just placed my coffee cup in a secure location on my desk rather than trying to float it in midair.

He seemed to think that I believed that being gay is  a habit that needs changed when I have never said anything to that effect.

Let me clarify. I didn’t say that being gay is a habit, but that we carry over from one life to the next various habits and attachments. This applies to all whether gay or straight.

If a gay person seeks to change his sexual orientation, and he is near the zero point, it will be more difficult than changing a habit like quitting smoking. When you quit smoking for a time you eventually eliminate most of the nicotine from your system and the desire for a cigarette changes considerably.

The problem for the gay person is if he forces his orientation to change, the latent energy and desire remains unchanged. There is no nicotine to get out of his system to make a permanent change easier.

If one is born near the zero point with close to a zero male/female charge then he will carry over thoughtforms and some desires from the previous life. He will not be able to will himself to be attracted to the opposite sex because his new charge is not strong enough. Those who are not familiar with these teachings will either just accept their same sex attraction or fight it with some confusion and frustration the rest of their lives.

No matter what he does, change is coming and if in a new incarnation he has made a switchover from one sex to another that energy will increase and eventually the person will sense it and go with it. By the second lifetime after the switchover the energy becomes strong enough with which to identify. There are exceptions of course.

I have always advised gays to search within and sense which direction the energy is shifting. He must ask if he is moving toward a greater female or male charge. The answer is always one or the other for no one stands still in this changing universe.

Then for some reason he had the idea that gays could not receive soul contact. I have said the opposite. I have said the gay person is closer to the zero point and actually has a less distracted access provided he is true to his soul. This is one reason gays are so creative.

Next he seemed to express concern that a gay would have to dilute his energies in blending with other people in the molecular relationship.

You are doing this now and I doubt that it dilutes anything. I assume you have associates at work that you labor with. Does this dilute your relationship with your mate?

In the molecule I will work with people besides my wife and gays will work with people besides their partners for the purpose of making it work. This will be similar to you working with an associate to make a piece of software work.

You seem to see that working with anyone besides your mate would be a loss but we will all have to work with others in the real world.

A battery cannot work without the correct use of the two polarities. Male and female are two polarities that must be considered to create the correct energy flow. This energy flow has nothing to do with soul contact. Soul contact merely allows one to see the principle.

Let us suppose you and your partner were in a molecule together and were in the same Triad of three males and three females. You and Thom could still get your heads together and share ideas as much as ever, but the other four people would also need to be included in their proper place. The Molecule is a place of spiritual labor, not a romantic situation. Intimate communication with romantic interests should be done outside of the molecule.

Next he seemed to express concern that his relationships in a molecule would take away from his relationship with his mate.

You seem to be looking at the Molecule as a place to have intimate emotional interplay. That is not its purpose. The spiritual energy a working molecule will draw down will be completely inclusive and there will be no sense of loss connected with it for all will have an equal share. Your spiritual joy with various members will be the same as with your partner.

He asks whether I think gays can enter the kingdom of God to which I responded, anyone who follows his soul will enter the kingdom of God.

There is one criterion for membership in a molecule and that is soul contact and that participants feel that contact in each other. Once this is done there should be complete acceptance of each other on a soul level, even though there will be differences of opinion in areas where the soul has not spoken to the group.

No one in the group has expressed any rejection toward you because you are gay. Some will disagree with you on certain items, but they disagree with me much more often than with you and I feel no need to justify myself. People can take or leave me. I care not.

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, President of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

March 6, 2008

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE

Economic Principles

Looks like a number of great men in our history believed in fiat money. looks like we can add Benjamin Franklin to the list.

As a result of scarcity of gold, the colonists turned to alternative forms of money including wampum, tobacco, and copper coins. Most silver coinage in circulation came from Spanish America, Spain, the Netherlands, the German States, France and other foreign countries. The colonies began issuing colonial script that was paper fiat currency not backed by gold or silver. This type of money was also known as colonial bills of credit. This radically differed from the bills of debit issued by the central banks of Europe.

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the newfound prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied:

“That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called ‘Colonial Script’. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers…. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

In response, the Bank of England influenced the British Parliament to put a stop to this activity. Under the Currency Act of 1764, King George III decreed that the Colonists cease printing their own money. The colonial script in circulation was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio with notes drawn from the Bank of England. This caused widespread unemployment and economic depression in the colonies.

“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.” (Benjamin Franklin) Reference Link

A reader asked me for greater clarification of my thinking on money and economics

I basically did this with the article entitled “The Five Points.” I could probably write a book giving more details supporting those points, but will add a few thingshere.

It matters not what kind of system you have where power is concerned you have the possibility of dishonesty, theft and corruption. By the use of the word “power” this can imply political power, power over money, religious authority, business leadership and other avenues. Wherever power is involved, the misuse of power under our current principles of organization are a common occurrence. Now Mises himself recognized this problem and stated that even a strict gold system is not immune from problems of corrupt people misusing and manipulating it.

Now, if the Molecular Relationship were applied to organizations where people have a stewardship over power of any kind then the misuse of power would go down dramatically because the leadership can be challenged and replaced at any time. On the other hand, the best of all possible systems is still no guarantee that there will not be problems.

You recall the scriptures give the story of the War in Heaven where Satan challenged God and wanted to take his place. The majority, two thirds supported God and Satan was rejected. Instead of accepting the vote he and his supporters rebelled. Because they were no longer Molecular they had to be separated from the body or the body would die so they were thrown out of heaven into the earth. In the higher spheres the Molecular Order is thus still maintained and available for linkup to those on the earth.

If therefore the Molecular Order governed those who have power over our money we would have economic stability for long periods of time, perhaps thousands of years without a rebellion as happened in heaven. In this situation a money system could be created backed by a commodity or labor which could be stable.

Now we can’t just snap our fingers and change the status quo to the Molecular Relationship so we have to look at what should be done right now within the system which is not being done now.

Several laws can be passed which, if followed, could improve our current economic system.

1. A law requiring a balanced budget, except in times of national emergency.
2. A law restricting the issuing of excess dollars into the system that will cause inflation. The value of new money into the system should approximately match the projected expansion of goods and services. Economists can come pretty close to predicting this, but because of many factors, and especially lack of law, this balance is frustrated.

The current housing crisis is caused, for instance, because of the unwise release of too much money into the system because of outrageous loan approvals that would have been laughed out of town a few years ago.

3. Switching the issuing of money from the Private Federal Reserve to the Treasury Department thus saving the government from paying interest on its own money and saving the people themselves untold amounts of money.
4. Streamlining our spending by cutting back on many of the current entitlements.
5. Those who participate in stealing the public’s money should be prosecuted. For instance, the government stole all our Social Security savings and used it for their own purposes. Those who do this and other outrageous acts of infamy need to be held accountable. So far Congress can violate the public trust all they want and the only thing they get for it is a pay raise they vote for themselves.

Now if I were to write of an economic system that would lay the foundation of Zion I would have an altered approach. When the gathering comes we will have to first look at the assets we have and create an initial system that will give us power to purchase goods and services in and out of the group. All the details cannot be ironed out until the gathering becomes possible. I’m sure I will be writing more on various principles involved before the gathering. Who knows, we may discover an unlimited source of energy and use power itself as a backing for money used with the world. I like to cross bridges when they come. Before that time, I tend to speak in general principles, which, when understood, will allow for the safe crossing of the bridge.

Better is the enemy of the good. — Voltaire

Mach 5, 2008

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE